Heritage Foundation does damage control

The Heritage Foundation has gone into damage-control mode in the last few days, after coming under fire from Republicans and conservative outside groups over a report it published that puts the price tag of immigration reform at $6.3 trillion.

The conservative think tank is considering hiring a high-profile public relations firm to help deal with the fallout of the report that was supposed to be their big play in the immigration debate, according to two sources familiar with Heritage.

Text Size

The group has also come under scrutiny after it was reported that one of the authors of the report asserted previously that white Americans have higher IQs than immigrants.

Michael Gonzalez, vice president of communications for the think tank, declined to comment on whether the think tank is weighing the move, but he said it has not hired any outside firms.

The rollout was supposed to be a coming out party of sorts for Jim DeMint, who took the helm of the organization last month, after giving up his Senate seat to take the job. While DeMint was expected to give the group a higher profile, the backlash and controversy are not the kind of attention the group was hoping to garner.

If Heritage does hire an outside consulting firm, it would be a significant move. The think tank usually relies on its own internal communications team.

Since the rollout Monday, Gonzalez has published two blog posts on the think tank’s site responding to criticism.

The fact that outside help is under consideration suggests that the group, which has publicly rejected criticisms of the report and one of its coauthors, is seriously concerned about potential damage to its reputation.

One Republican operative who works on immigration reform said that hiring a crisis communications firm could help stop the bleeding with donors or other supporters. Heritage’s efforts to get traction for its immigration report could be hampered, the operative said, if it gets lumped in with groups like FAIR, NumbersUSA or CIS, which are considered pure opposition to the immigration reform effort.

Heritage has stood by its findings that an immigration overhaul would cost $6.3 trillion despite many conservative groups and lawmakers, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), calling the findings inaccurate.

The group has also been fending off attacks over one of the report’s coauthors, Jason Richwine. As part of his Harvard dissertation, Richwine, who is now a senior policy analyst at the think tank, argued that there was a long-standing difference between the IQ of white Americans and immigrants.

He also wrote that IQs of immigrant groups should be considered when making decisions about who should be allowed permanent status in the U.S.

The Washington Post first published Richwine’s dissertation summary.

Heritage’s Gonzalez wrote in a blog post that the Harvard paper does not represent Heritage’s position.

“It’s findings do not reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation or the conclusions of our study on the cost of amnesty to U.S. taxpayers, as race and ethnicity are not part of Heritage immigration policy recommendations,” Gonzalez wrote, adding that Richwine provided quantitative support to the lead author Robert Rector.